"US Supreme Court Justices agree that he is the best litigator that appears before him. Scalia has said it. Cruz notes that Rehnquist said it. O'Connor calls him first rate. This should count for something."

Being a good litigator does not translate into how he will decide cases, but only speaks to his competence, which I do not dispute. It does not even tell us his judicial philosophy since, very often, the opinions that he is arguing are designed to achieve victory for his client and are not necessarily reflective of his own opinions or philosophy.

"He clerked for Rehnquist and worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. He's been a Federal judge for 2 years. He's got enough of a record to know him."

I beg to differ. Again, his clerking for Rehnquist is good, but still does not indicate his personal philosophy. His work in the Reagan and Bush administrations reflects the advancement of their policies, not necessarily his own. He has, in fact, been quite careful to make that distinction, in testimony and as a footnote in a law review article. His record as a Federal Judge for the last 2 year is indeed sparse, and while showing a temperament indicative of an originalist, there is still room for doubt - and my point has been that there were other choices with a less disputable record that could have been nominated, thereby avoiding a stealth nominee situation like we had with Souter.

"Souter wasnt in the Federalist society."

Alberto Gonzales, who has made statements that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is, and who is not an originalist, is also in the Federalist Society, demonstrating that one's memberships may be more reflective of political expediency rather than true beliefs or philosophy.